huffpo doing their part, Conspirac... a "security blanket"

[bks]

Joe Hillshoist wrote:

It doesn't touch on the idea that the Bush admin (or some members thereof) either caused or was(were) involved in the attacks. Of those 3 claims that middle one is pretty specific - a little info bomb right there in the middle:

Quote:
_ There were warnings of the impending attacks from 11 different countries, and fighter jets could have intercepted at least one of the four planes that day.

Thats a very specific claim/fact, just tucked away in the middle of an article about conspiracies.

Honestly this is terribly written or its trying to implant subversive ideas in peoples heads. (Or both).

Yeah, that's part of the game. Equate specific, eminently discoverable claims about gov't wrongdoing with the most sensational, undiscoverable ones. Or conflate the operational conspiracy with the "grand conspiracy narrative", as if they are the same thing or even sprung from the same loins.

Saying it's trying to implant subversive ideas in people's heads is being charitable. It's more likely a kind of bad jacketing: anyone who considers any of these ideas is a conspiracy theorist.

I was only asking because I like Mickey Huff, and consider him a friend having worked with him a couple of times. I want to be able to congratulate him for raising Arianna's blood pressure, if he in fact did. This thread hasn't given me anything to go on, is all.

[Joe Hillshoist]

She just sold her website for how many million? I think thats her main motivation. Any semantic similarity and hence distraction is probably a fluke. Maybe not cos project censored has been around for a while, and if you type in huff then huffington post is on top and Mickey Huff nowhere to be seen.

Next time you see him give him a pat on the back from me, and buy him a beer, (if he drinks it). Project censored is excellent. I've been following it for years.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Saying it's trying to implant subversive ideas in people's heads is being charitable. It's more likely a kind of bad jacketing: anyone who considers any of these ideas is a conspiracy theorist.

After reading that one I was thinking the opposite tho. Rally. I was thinking that if anything I'm more inclined to check out 9/11 conspiracy theories than not after reading that article.

I accept it could just be a formulaic, parroted hatchet job - if so it was terrible writing. I could write a better article than that. And I don't even accept the premise.

[2012 Countdown]

I feel terribly secure since it dawned on me, and has subsequently been proven on a regular basis, that this world is run by cheats, liars, thieves, rapists, hypnotists and remorseless killers. It's my happy place. I suck my thumb, hot particles, microwaves and dioxin fall like gentle snow on my bankie, and soothing visions of food riots and martial law dance in my head.

Yeah, this is what has always POd me about that. As if thinking 'they' are plotting to control the world, and one tactic is to attack the very country and people you claim to be defending. Yeah, thats much more comforting than the official version.

[bks]

I get it now! Huff, Huffington. I'm slow with these keyword hijacking hypotheses [talk about charitable]. Your well wishes will be passed along!

JH wrote;
After reading that one I was thinking the opposite tho. Rally. I was thinking that if anything I'm more inclined to check out 9/11 conspiracy theories than not after reading that article.

Yeah, I can rarely tell. Your sense of it is probably way better than mine. Clearly writers have to find ways to sneak in subversive ideas these days, and given how shitty the article is it's not easy to tell whether that subversiveness [if there] was the intention or just an unintended byproduct of the shittiness.

With the 10th anniversary coming up, and some serious allegations being re-aired [Kevin Fenton's very good book] amid new allegations against the CIA from the executive branch's top Counterterrorism official at the time, expect a number of these kinds of stories. "The Comfort of Conspiracy", blah blah.

Liked the book Jack Bratich wrote about conspiracy theory as an "object of concern". He asks: "Is a conspiracy theory defined primarily by its internal narrative characteristics or by its external discursive position? In other words is it something inherent in the theory itself or is it more about the forums it appears in, its relation to other theories and the legitimation accorded it?" His position is quite nuanced, but he seems to believe that the decision in official circles to treat conspiracy theory as a social problem is supported in part because it enables all sorts of other activities, including the expansion of state power and surveillance.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=20244